On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 14:43:02 -0000, Wolf K wrote:

On 2019-01-27 16:09, Chris wrote:
Commander Kinsey wrote:
[...]
I assume you're referring to my statement about the IQ test. You do
realise that an IQ of 100 is the average?

It is a standardised average. Meaning that it is always 100, regardless of
any absolute changes in results. So killing off "idiots" will have exactly
zero effect on average IQ.

I recall reading a note a few years ago that claimed that actual
performance on IQ tests had risen about 10 points since the 1940s. IIRC,
similar observations have been reported for SAT and other "objective"
tests. [1]

I should think so too, stupid people really should die off, or not procreate. Surely you're more likely to marry an intelligent wife than a stupid one?

My son once told me that J. Edgar Hoover's method of improving the
service was to fire everybody who was below average. Apparently he
couldn't understand why in the next round of tests there were people who
scored below average. I suspect it's an apocryphal tale, but it
illustrates a common misunderstanding about averages, as well as a
superstitious reverence for test scores. A test score is a number after
all, and numbers are facts....

Microsoft do the same, they fire the lowest scoring people. Makes sense. It'll make the average increase, but then you can always increase it more.

BTW, shoe size is said to correlate positively with IQ sco the larger
your feet, the more likely that you will score above average.

That could be possible. Inferior people tend to be stupid, fat, ugly, have small feet, huge noses, poor coordination, etc, etc.

Best,

[1] I used to give a reading test for a text before we dealt with ti in
class, then again after we had dealt with it. I made quite clear that I
expected the students to score higher the 2nd time, and that the passing
score would be considerably higher than the first time.